Gross McGinley LLP

gross-headerimg-1
Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Venue Protections for Pennsylvania Medical Providers

Written by: on March 27, 2019 | Category: Blog | Tags:

Proposed Changes to Venue Protections for Pennsylvania Medical Providers

Retaining qualified doctors reached a crisis point in Pennsylvania in the 1990s. Medical malpractice lawsuits were not only increased in numbers, but excessive awards bankrupted the four major insurance companies and drove physicians to practice outside of the borders of the Commonwealth. The ability of every day citizens to access competent medical care, particularly in the high risk area of obstetrics, was at risk. Pennsylvania’s legislature, and later judiciary, recognized the crisis and responded in 2002. Studies revealed the issues to be two-fold. The State responded to both causes.

First, an excessive number of frivolous suits were filed with the goal being a quick settlement. Litigation is time consuming for medical providers, requiring an expenditure of countless hours preparing for and appearing at depositions, responding to hundreds of written questions, and then attending a one to two week trial. To enable providers to remain in their offices to care for patients, settlements would occur in cases with little to no merit.  In response, in 2003 Pennsylvania required that any new professional liability actions be accompanied with a “Certificate of Merit” signed by a professional (medical provider) attesting to the fact that the case had at least some merit,  curtailing the filing of non-meritorious cases.

Second, “venue shopping” enabled patients to commence litigation in a County deemed to be most favorable to the Plaintiff – namely the success rates of Philadelphia Plaintiffs were twice that of the national average and more than half of the awards were over $1 million. In the Northeast, this meant Plaintiffs treated outside the borders of Philadelphia attempted to have their lawsuit heard in Philadelphia – not because the patient or medical provider had any actual connection to Philadelphia – but in hopes of having a more Plaintiff friendly jury. Such “high verdicts” increased doctors’ malpractice insurance costs, led to the failure of the four largest insurance companies, and incentivized doctors to leave Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth responded by requiring medical malpractice lawsuits be filed “in the County in which the care was provided.”

When the Pennsylvania Legislature and Judiciary came together, the crisis was ended. In short, the reforms worked! However, in December 2018 concern was expressed that since the crisis ended, it was now time to undo the reforms and remove the venue protections offered. The Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Rules Committee issued a proposal seeking to eliminate the venue protections offered to medical providers – making it easier to sue a provider in jurisdictions such as Philadelphia. Medical providers responded en mass – recognizing the Commonwealth cannot return to the rules of the 1990s that permitted forum shopping, leading to this crisis. The State Supreme Court listened and issued a directive to the Legislature to study the issue once again, holding off on any decision until at least January 2020. In just one year, the question will re-emerge as to whether Pennsylvania places provision of medical care in jeopardy once again or retains the reforms proven to work.


Attorney Kimberly Krupka defends hospitals and major health networks as a member of Gross McGinley’s Medical Malpractice Team. 

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog